General Discussion

SoCalDem

(103,856 posts)

11. It all depends on what the definition of "middle class" is these days

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 12:07 PM

Jul 2012

Go back to the era when the middle class was :created".

A middle class life usually meant that the wife could stay home with the kids, and the family could afford to buy a house and at least one car, and could afford to take a vacation every year..and they could afford to save for college. The income-earner usually had a pension they could count on.

From there on, there were divisions within middle class..

Upper

Big house
Buick/Oldsmobile/Pontiac
Private college
vacations abroad
kids go to live-away summer camps
live in help..housekeeper/nanny
nice savings account
a vacation home somewhere nice

middle middle

just-big-enough house
Ford/Chevy/Studebaker
public college (kids had to work summers)
vacations to national parks/family living elsewhere
occasional housekeeper/babysitter
savings only for emergencies or a needed household item
a shared vacation cottage (shared with other family members)
kids go to day camp

lower middle

house busting at seams..kids share rooms
old car/no car
public college..kids work and try for scholarships
vacations every few years..to whatever's close-by ( or to family)
no household help
kids babysit each other, or they go along
little or no savings things are bought used or are hand-me-downs
kids play at home in the summer..maybe Bible school camps (they were cheap/free)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

To live that kind of life (you choose), it will always depend on where you are.

To have upper in San Francisco, Boston, New York, Chicago, etc, $250K might not do it

If you are in St Louis, or Wichita or Omaha, you could do it easily (except for the college part)

Throw in self-paid medical insurance to any of the choices and all bets are off..

"Back in the day", people could afford to get sick.,.,not now..

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

112 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If you take home more than $250,000 a year, are you middle class? [View all] hedgehog Jul 2012 OP

Since netting more than $250,000 a year would put you in the top 5% of sinkingfeeling Jul 2012 #1

It's not TAKE HOME PAY, fucking get it right, OP! It's net income, after annual 1040 deductions Lionessa Jul 2012 #96

I go nuts also LynnTTT Jul 2012 #105

Exactly. Most folks making $500K are only taxed on about $200K, people just don't get it. Lionessa Jul 2012 #106

In some locations, like Manhattan, if that income comes from two salaries, pnwmom Jul 2012 #2

If you choose to live in an expensive wealthy area you are not middle class Marrah_G Jul 2012 #5

You don't think a firefighter and a teacher who live in Manhattan pnwmom Jul 2012 #15

So, is class determined by income, or what you do? oldhippie Jul 2012 #16

I think that's a good question. I think it's more than income; the source of the income pnwmom Jul 2012 #33

half the households in nyc make $50K or less. $250K ain't middle class even in nyc. HiPointDem Jul 2012 #48

It's not based on how sympathetic their profession are; it's based on how their income ranks. nt Romulox Jul 2012 #20

I think it's based on more than just income, and that the cost of living pnwmom Jul 2012 #35

Your hypothetical couple is still making over *three* times the median family income for NYC, though Romulox Jul 2012 #37

Twice the median of Manhattan would still put them in the broad middle range. pnwmom Jul 2012 #40

Nope. It puts them in the top 5%. Damn numbers! nt Romulox Jul 2012 #43

top 5%. not middle class. HiPointDem Jul 2012 #49

So, should the middle-class now walled off from Manhattan? San Francisco? San Jose? leveymg Jul 2012 #53

Sorry, top 5% of income is not middle class. To be in the middle of anything Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #50

It's all relative to where you work. $250K would make you relatively poor in many areas of NYC, SF, leveymg Jul 2012 #55

That's already been debunked several times over on this thread. nt Romulox Jul 2012 #75

That's not true. I have lived in all the areas you've mentioned and others even more expensive, Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #101

Well, I'm sure you will agree that PotatoChip Jul 2012 #112

Um, no. Starry Messenger Jul 2012 #109

If they were two single people, they would be middle class. Does marrying make them upper class? pnwmom Jul 2012 #61

Yes. It's statistics. That's *exactly* how it works. nt Romulox Jul 2012 #76

Only if current income is the only factor involved in "class." pnwmom Jul 2012 #80

The distribution of income is a mathematical question. The implications of that distribution Romulox Jul 2012 #83

"Middle class" doesn't necessarily mean "middle income." Only "middle income" pnwmom Jul 2012 #87

I simply don't see any evidence for that. It seems like a self-serving theory put forward by the 5% Romulox Jul 2012 #90

The evidence is in any dictionary or encyclopedia. The meaning of "middle class" pnwmom Jul 2012 #93

"Middle class" doesn't mean anything at all. It's a marketing term to convince you that Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #102

TAKE HOME?? That's $5000/week or thereabouts. NO, kestrel91316 Jul 2012 #3

BS 250k is not middle class Marrah_G Jul 2012 #4

You're exactly right! $250k is NOT "middle class". BlueCaliDem Jul 2012 #59

We are the 95% B2G Jul 2012 #6

The entire "1%" framing is an attempt to enhance the 2 through 10%'s power... Romulox Jul 2012 #7

+1 Aerows Jul 2012 #19

+1 Johonny Jul 2012 #38

I think the '1%' framing served an extremely valuable purpoose initially, in that it coalition_unwilling Jul 2012 #85

Great post. Something for me to think about. nt Romulox Jul 2012 #89

Upper class but by no means plutocracy... Fumesucker Jul 2012 #8

Doubt it Aerows Jul 2012 #21

They wouldn't have to be a $250K person for long to get out if they really wanted to.. Fumesucker Jul 2012 #32

But a lot of the proletariat sympathize with the plutocracy Johonny Jul 2012 #42

Yeah, I know. Humans aren't rational animals but rather animals that rationalize.. Fumesucker Jul 2012 #54

I kind of really depends Johonny Jul 2012 #66

The Problem, Ma'am Is the Absurd Over-Inflation Of 'Middle Class' Here The Magistrate Jul 2012 #9

Here is where we run into the confusion between the amount of money you have hedgehog Jul 2012 #10

True, Ma'am The Magistrate Jul 2012 #14

That's silly. My entire house's value wouldn't make the downpayment on many "encumbered properties". Romulox Jul 2012 #12

Amen ! A major pet peeve of mine is when people say they "own" vs "rent" SoCalDem Jul 2012 #17

Nope. It doesn't work that way. Look up "equity of redemption". Romulox Jul 2012 #22

Lots of the upper class carry mortgages on their homes. Major Nikon Jul 2012 #111

It all depends on what the definition of "middle class" is these days SoCalDem Jul 2012 #11

Shoot - by that definition I'm lower middle class - hedgehog Jul 2012 #18

Us too. We had a good start, but our first child had serious medical problems SoCalDem Jul 2012 #34

I think you've identified the real issue right here. Middle class has become meaningless except as Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #60

that's upper middle class. n/t progressivebydesign Jul 2012 #13

quick question Sekhmets Daughter Jul 2012 #88

no text, meaning there's nothing in the body of the message fizzgig Jul 2012 #108

If you carry a purse Aerows Jul 2012 #23

On a national level, no. Proud Public Servant Jul 2012 #24

median household income in dc = $58K. that's the middle. your household income is more than HiPointDem Jul 2012 #51

I'd quibble, but perhaps agree Proud Public Servant Jul 2012 #64

if middle class isn't the middle of the income distribution, it's a pretty arbitrary (& thus meaning HiPointDem Jul 2012 #67

May not be middle class but it is still WORKING CLASS and that makes them more like me CBGLuthier Jul 2012 #25

Exactly Aerows Jul 2012 #27

That is not what "working class" means. Not historically, at least. nt Romulox Jul 2012 #28

Excellent point Sekhmets Daughter Jul 2012 #86

one word answer...no AnOhioan Jul 2012 #26

I make about that FreeJoe Jul 2012 #29

I think we should tax the hell out of luxury goods Aerows Jul 2012 #30

They tried something like that in the 90s. Nye Bevan Jul 2012 #103

That's about what you need to be solidly middle class Warpy Jul 2012 #31

Taking home 250K is a far different matter than earning 250K. Ikonoklast Jul 2012 #36

Not that far FreeJoe Jul 2012 #41

I figured it at around earning 320K to take home 250K. Ikonoklast Jul 2012 #46

Alas, it is a situation I will never have to contend with. Tierra_y_Libertad Jul 2012 #39

Upper middle class, maybe. not sure. nt boston bean Jul 2012 #44

A single person living in Lubbock on that: rich 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #45

The may average for 3 BR Manhattan was over 5K. Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #65

Depends on where you live, but in general the answer is "NO". HopeHoops Jul 2012 #47

In Kansas, no. In and expensive city yes taught_me_patience Jul 2012 #52

It depends on how much you have to spend every year slackmaster Jul 2012 #56

I would like to make that much to find out. liberal N proud Jul 2012 #57

We think of ourselves as middle class Fresh_Start Jul 2012 #58

We don't earn near that much as a couple, but we hedgehog Jul 2012 #95

its tough because effectively we've traditionally identified three groups qazplm Jul 2012 #62

yes. That is not even close to being rich. Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #63

The top 5% doesn't make you the middle of anything. Unless it's sinkingfeeling Jul 2012 #68

By that reasoning only 0 people are middle class. Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #69

Uh? I would say the 'middle' is like 40-60%. sinkingfeeling Jul 2012 #70

OK, different statement than before. Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #71

Percentiles. The middle class is defined most often as the 3rd. & 4th. sinkingfeeling Jul 2012 #73

I'll try again. Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #74

We used to call that "upper middle-class". ieoeja Jul 2012 #72

You could make meth in a trailer yellerpup Jul 2012 #77

It depends on where you live. Blue_In_AK Jul 2012 #78

I think a more relevant question is how dependent is your income on those incomes above you, compare patrice Jul 2012 #79

that's the 98.5% percentile Enrique Jul 2012 #81

Yep Sekhmets Daughter Jul 2012 #82

MORE than $250K is a pretty open ended range. But no, it wouldn't be middle class. n/t pnwmom Jul 2012 #84

Upper middle, yes. MrSlayer Jul 2012 #91

16 times the minimum wage is not middle class. rug Jul 2012 #92

No thelordofhell Jul 2012 #94

"Middle class" is a ridiculous concept. It's completely arbitrary and invented... lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #97

Here is the heart of the problem in the US nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #98

I would count myself most fortunate if I made $250,000 per year. It is certainly upper middle class Douglas Carpenter Jul 2012 #99

kick for more discussion nt steve2470 Jul 2012 #100

If you're 95 years old, are you middle aged? eom Tanuki Jul 2012 #104

Tell you what - let me try it for about 20 years, and I'll let you know. drb Jul 2012 #107

Threads like this are honestly why I prefer the Marxist definitions of class. white_wolf Jul 2012 #110